Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1525
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Darshan Singh, J.
Jagdish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 1010-SB of 2003
Decided On : 23-12-2014
For the Appellant :Aman Pal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Deepak Bura, Public Prosecutor
The demand and acceptance of a bribe can be proven through circumstantial evidence, and the recovery of tainted currency notes shifts the burden to the accused to explain the circumstances to prove innocence.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Section 7
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a branch manager, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe for disbursement of a loan. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of `4000 for the loan disbursement, and the trap set by the police resulted in the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant's possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand and acceptance of the bribe were established through circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant's possession. The court rejected the appellant's defense plea and acquitted him of one charge while convicting him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the demand and acceptance of the bribe were proven, and whether the appellant's defense plea of false implication was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand and acceptance of the bribe can be established from circumstantial evidence, and the recovery of tainted currency notes shifts the burden to the accused to explain the circumstances to prove innocence. The court also emphasized that the failure of the complainant and shadow witness to support the prosecution's version was not sufficient grounds for acquittal.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and dismissed the appeal, canceling the appellant's bail and ordering him to surrender to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14.05.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra vide which appellant Jag-dish Kumar was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter called the Act) and the order on quantum of sentence of the even date vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. The brief facts of giving rise to this prosecution are that on 19.08.1996, complainant PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar presented the application Ex. PF to PW-12 Joginder Nehra, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pehwa alleging therein that he was unemployed. He had taken a loan of ` 40,000/- for running an electric shop from Union Bank Gumthala Garu Branch. Accused-appellant Jagdish Kumar, Branch Manager demanded a sum of ` 4000/- as bribe for disbursement of the said loan amount. That earlier he got released an installment of ` 2000/- for which an iron press was given to the bank Manager as bribe. That now he could arrange only ` 3000/-. He was not willing to give bribe. On that day, he had gone to bank to receive the balance amount of the sanctioned loan, but the branch Manager told him that he should meet him at shop No. 10, Anaj Mandi, Pehwa at 5.00 p.m. He came to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Joginder Nehra with PW-7 Surat Singh and prayed for taking legal action against the branch manager.
2. After receipt of the said complaint, PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, the then Tehsildar, Pehwa was requested to join as a Magistrate in the raiding party. Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa reached the office of DSP. Complainant handed over thirty currency notes of ` 100/- denomination each. The personal search of the complainant was taken as per law. Nothing was recovered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Joginder Nehra and Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa initialed the currency notes. Thereafter, the said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The said currency notes were handed over to the complainant for handing over the same to accused on his demand. Surat Singh was appointed as a shadow witness and was instructed to remain at a distance from Kuldeep Kumar and to give the signal to raiding party by touching his head with his hand after passing over of the bribe money from complainant Kuldeep Kumar to the appellant.
3. The complainant and shadow witness went to shop No. 10, Anaj Mandi, Pehwa and the remaining members of the raiding party kept waiting for the appointed signal from the shadow witness. After some time, on receipt of the appointed signal from Surat Singh, the shadow witness, the raiding party reached at the spot. The Investigating Officer offered his personal search to the accused. Thereafter, the personal search of accused was conducted. During which thirty currency notes of the denomination of ` 100/- each were recovered from the front pocket of the T-shirt of accused. The number of said currency notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the memo prepared by the Investigating Officer. The said currency notes were found to have been initialled by PW-11 Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa and PW-12 Jagdish Nehra, DSP. The said currency notes were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer by putting them in a sealed envelope. The seal was handed over to Gurmeet Singh, Tehsildar, Pehwa. The hand wash and the wash of T-shirt pocket of appellant were taken separately. The solution turned pink in colour. The said solution was kept in separate bottles in sealed parcels. The accused was arrested and on completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) was presented in the Court.
4. The accused-appellant was charge sheeted for the offences punish
